The Democrat’s legal attack against President Trump’s first Travel Ban Executive Order was so successful, they are now doubling down against Travel Ban EO Rev 2.0. Literally doubling down. EO Rev 1.0 involved two states, now Rev 2.0 has four states participating in this latest federal court challenge.
As The Hill reports, all four states have Democratic Attorney Generals: (The Hill)
“Democratic attorneys general in four states announced Thursday that they will try to block the Trump administration’s revised executive order on travel in court, pushing for the temporary restraining order that halted the first order to remain intact. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D) and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) will join Washington in challenging the new ban.”
Having been so successful at “judge shopping” the first time around, the liberals didn’t find a need to reinvent the wheel, they just headed back to that same fruitful well:
“We’ve won in court, and the president has had to honor those defeats,” Ferguson told reporters at a press conference in Seattle. “It’s my expectation that we will continue to prevail, and certainly my expectation that the president will continue to respect the decision of the court.”
Evidently feeling quite emboldened by being among friends, it doesn’t appear they find it necessary to polish up their legal strategy:
“Ferguson said the state will continue to argue that the travel ban amounts to a ban on Muslims. In the initial suit, Ferguson’s office relied on comments from President Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump backer, who said the president asked him to come up with a legal way to ban Muslims.” The Hill continued, “President Trump’s latest executive order is a Muslim ban by another name, imposing policies and protocols that once again violate the Equal Protection Clause and Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution,” Schneiderman said in a statement. In a statement Thursday, Healey called the ban “discriminatory and unconstitutional.”
Their legal arguement is structured around Candidate Trump’s comments about Muslims, immigration, and national populism. It boils down to asking the judge to ignore decades of precedent which gives the Executive Branch virtual carte blanch in visa and immigration policy, and instead concentrate on the statements of a private citizen engaged in a political campaign. The argument?
“President Trump is a racist. He’s always been a racist. Here are examples of his racism over the primary and general election campaigns, ergo his Presidential decisions are now racially biased. So, Judge our good buddy, you must find his Executive Order unconstitutional based upon our feelings that everyone everywhere is protected by the American constitution’s position on religious discrimination.”
It is only fair to note Republicans went into friendly conservative federal courts in order to combat several Obama Executive Orders, obviously this legal strategy is not new to either party. However, the audacity of the liberals in this case showcases their hubris. Only an extremely liberal judge would be able to swallow their legal arguement and then issue a nationwide injunction based upon it.
This is taking the “ipso facto” argument to the extreme. But then, recent examples such as the fictitous Red Scare, have shown decency, love of country, and truthfulness is no longer their concern.